The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-03-05

vocate tile selling Of this property Sup
posing the present structure Sho qld be
burned would the citizens Of Portland sane
ton an appropriation to rebuild building
Of any, description on the Market square
lot? Let us see what the real value Is.
First, the amount of rent received from
Messrs Kendall & Whitney, viz: $500 per
year; and second, cost OF hiring rooms to
accommodate the militia now quartered in
the building and for ward uses, for which
expense $500 more per year would be
large sum,-much larger, probably, than
would be required; this would give the gross
income of the property al; $4,000 per year.
From this deduct yearly cost of repairs
which has averaged $500 yer year lsee
$50 per year for janitor, and nothing for in
surance, in ali 1882. 80 per year, leaving the
net income 26674S per year.
Now the material In the old building
would undoubtedly bring at auction enough
TO nav for its removal and probably cover
the cost of grading the lot the city would
not have been required to expend any money
and would still own and control the lot the
same as now.
Where. and how let me ask will this in
crease the city debt 100000 as has been as
serted? On the contrary believe that in
the immediate future the present income of
the property would be returned TO the city
treasury more than three-fold every year in
taxes received ON the increased valuation Of
property AUDITING in Market Square.
am aware that some may say that less
than $500 per year is not fair statement of
the income value of this property, as
Messrs. Kendall & Whitney are reported to
offer to lease the building at yearly rent OF
$3.50 % per cent. on $4,000 but 1t is not
stated at same time they require the en-
tire building ON these terms which would
necesstate the removal OF the armories, and
also that they would require the city to
change the two upper stories and put them
I I'M condition IN accommodate their I'm cinaco
How much of this $3,750 would there be left
afCer deducting yearly cost of repairs, in
terest on cost of making required changes
and rent of armories.
Furthermore is there not great deal of
presumption, to say the least, on the part Of
minority of only is of the total vote III this
question to come forward and say to the
majority of rs ''you. can't have this location.
When you erect monument 1t must be
when zoe can give our unanimous consent"
and ask that some other locality shall be
selected that Will meet their unanimous APP
proval. What cheek. Seyen-eighths were
unanimous for locating the monument in
Market Square, and the other one eighth are
divided on five different locations, and some
of them even can't agree on any locality that
would suit them. If this is not impudence
pure and undetled, what is it?
Now VIII give my reasons for voting in
favor of Market Square:
Flrst-Because | think the spirit
of improvement demands the removal of
that unsightly pile of brick and mortar,
monument or no monument.
Second-Because 0emolishing the old
building would remove a nuisance which has
existed in the very heart of the city for mere
than thirty years.
Third-Because there are no historical as
sociations connected with the building.
Fourth-Because giving this location
would cause less expense to the city than
any other.
Fifth-Because believe it to be the best,
most fitting and most desirable OF any
location in the city.
Sixth-Because it would add more to the
beauty and attractiveness of our city than it
would in any other place we could put it.
Seyenth-Because it would be placed where
all citizens and strangers could view it with
out going out of their way, and copperheads
couldn't dodge the sight of it, as they would
if it was placed in some out of the way cor
her, and
Eighth-Because seven-eighths of our citi-
zens gave as their free and unbiased opinion a
preference for this location. VETERAN.